19. The representatives argued that in this case, the exception to the rule for exhausting domestic remedies established in Article 46(2) of the Convention should operate, since the determination of criminal liability is a function of the State and its actions did not respect international standards for a criminal investigation into the death of a person deprived of liberty. They argued that the facts of this case concern not only the absence of a criminal investigation into the death of the alleged victim, but also her incarceration without adequate medical care, including the lack of adequate diagnosis, access to health services and medical treatment. Regarding the alleged lack of the remedy to claim damages, the representatives noted that, in the last 20 years, no public official has been convicted by that route, that pursuing these remedies involves very lengthy processes and that Guatemala does not have an appropriate and effective implementation mechanism to ensure a possible civil conviction. As to the need to file a civil claim for some form of liability, they argued that the fact that there is no criminal classification of matters such as negligence or lack of adequate medical care cannot be used to justify the failure to investigate and prosecute a person’s death, especially when the facts fall within the legal definitions of domestic legislation. Considerations of the Court 20. Article 46(1) (a) of the American Convention establishes that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication presented before the Inter-American Commission, pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary to have filed and exhausted domestic legal remedies, according to the generally accepted principles of International Law. 18 In this regard, the Court has held that any objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be submitted at the proper procedural moment, that is, during the procedure of admissibility before the Commission. 19 21. Therefore, during the processing the case, the State must clearly specify before the Commission the remedies that, in its view, have not yet been exhausted. This is related to the need to safeguard the principle of procedural equality between the parties, which must govern any procedure before the Inter-American System. The Court has repeatedly established that it is not for this Court or for the Commission to identify ex officio which domestic remedies are pending exhaustion, since it is not the role of international bodies to remedy the lack of precision in the State’s arguments. Likewise, the arguments that substantiate the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage must correspond to those presented before the Court.20 Likewise, the State must not only specify which domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted, but it must also demonstrate that these were available and were adequate, appropriate and effective. 21 22. In the first place, the Court points out that, during the stage of admissibility before the Commission, the State alleged that the next of kin had not attempted to file a complaint during 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2015. Series C No. 308, para. 20. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 85, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 21. 19 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 29; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 21. 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, paras. 88 and 91; and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 24. 21 10